I agree with you that an institution can corrupt an idea, which is what you're getting at I think. But your line of reasoning, to me, would turn science into Open Mic Night. I'm not sure how anything would get accomplished.<quoted text>
Yes but many a Kook in the Basement has been Correct... that 1600 page hypothesis may hold a sliver of information that allowed the next Eureka moment when a naked guy runs down the hallway... Consensus has actually seldom been correct completely and I can name many scientifically held consensuses that have been completely wrong once some kook in the basement got a few ivory towers to read what he has written.... Let's see Civilization is only 6k to 7k years from Hunter Gatherer to Us today... The earth is the center of the universe and resides in concentric transparent spheres.... The speed of Light is Constant...(That one you will have to read my hypothesis to figure out)....
Also, no theory is absolutely true or perfect. We cannot peel back that final layer and gaze upon the naked universe. Whatever works, works. That's how it works. The theory that works best given our current understanding and technology is going to be the prevailing theory. It doesn't matter if it later gets overturned. Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight is far from perfect.
I actually wish more people could get their ideas heard and taken seriously because I'm sure somewhere out there is a guy with a paper that has the potential to overturn paradigms in science. But unfortunately for every paradigm-shifting work of genius there are a thousand wastes of time. And time is money, and that's the most limited resource in this game.
And for someone like me, a non-scientist, I have to trust the experts. I can read the ideas and vet them to the extent that I am able to do so. But at some point I'm going to hit a wall of technicality that I'm not able or willing to scramble over. At that point I'm going to have to give it my *conditional* approval and move on. If I reject the idea that 90% of all experts agree on and I embrace an idea that one or two people promote then on what basis am I lending my trust? It can't be reason. It has to be something else, some kind of faith or fascination with the idea.
I lend my trust on evidence alone. And the consensus of experts is a part of that evidence. I do not see how it could be otherwise.